This is why I love this board

[Pulstar]

A smouldering thank you to everyone who repped me

[zetastrike]

[segaddict]

^LMAO. Rep

[kool kitty89]

I know, but I emphasized that 'cause he was talking about Perfect Dark (2000) like an innovative game and we had already seen a big "boom" of PC and their games at that time... I just found it strange (even he saying that he didn't had a good computer 'cause I had some friends with computers too and, heck, I'm in Brazil! And I was not a rich boy nor my friends (pardon if I'm not using it correctly), not at all... But it's probably just a matter of age.).

It's probably more a matter of context than age . . . people with little knowlege/interest in PC gaming would obviously look at the "milestones" created on the console end of things.

Goldeneye OTOH did introduce something significant: 4 player split-screen local multiplayer in an FPS . . . I don't think any console or computer FPSs supported that before. (I can't think of many with 2p split-screen for that matter -co-op or vs- . . . though Bloodshot/Battle Frenzy on the MD of all things did 2p split screen in 1996 )

I agree with you. But I think you missed the significance of Windows 95 ("In the marketplace, Windows 95 was a major success, and within a year or two of its release had become the most successful operating system ever produced." by Wiki) for people that never had a computer until then or for kids or whatever "newbie" end-users you can think of... It was so much easier to use than MS-DOS or Windows 3.11... And it was around 1996/1997 that it really exploded and many new users came into the "PC World", for the Internet, for games, MS Office...

Yes, windows 95 was a huge deal for the average/mainstream user's access to PCs, let alone for gaming use. (albeit OS/2 had potential for that years earlier . . . if IBM had managed/marketed it more competitively -especially towards the mainstream user market- . . . and users in Europe had had the ST and Amiga dominating the market in the late 80s and early 90s with pretty good GUIs/OSs for the time -especially compared to DOS/Windows- and the Amiga's OS in particular once it became mature/stable . . . but that's another topic )

About the PS1 vs PC comparison: The thing that really annoys me about 3D games (it doesn't apply for ray-casting games, of course) on PS1 is its messed perspective... Things like walls, mountains, buildings are moving/shaking almost all the time and it does look bad IMO. It's less annoying in games like Speedster (a.k.a. Rush Hour) but very compromising in games like NFS or Tomb Raider II.

That's a problem tied to simple affine texture mapping used by those systems (3DO, PSX, Jaguar, Saturn, among others) and most PC software renderers (and 32x, Mac, etc). For large, continuous textured spans, it's the worst, but breaking objects/rendering up into smaller polygon fans/groups (or smaller texture line segments) greatly reduces that problem at the expense of more rendering overhead (and potentially lower framerate).

Quake's software renderer uses horizontal line segments of 16 pixels long (ie if a horizontal line of a single texture inside a polygon goes beyong 16 pixels, it has perspective recalculated for that line), some PSX and Saturn games use more polygons to accomplish the same thing (splitting large polygons into smaller segments), but that has to be done on a per-model/texture basis rather than the more dynamic per-line basis of quake. (ie quake does it for small objects zoomed way in, but not for large objects in the distance . . . vs subdivision on models being done regardless of distance -hardware rasterizers could have potnetially supported line-based subdivision modes, but none did AFIK . . . though semi-accelerated renderers like the Jaguar -which can texture map lines, but not rasterize without added CPU/GPU overhead- could also manually segment lines like quake does)

With Tomb Raider's software renderer at low detail, texture warping is as bad (or worse) than the PSX or Saturn version, but the mid-detail mode already helps that a lot and the high-detail mode shows very limited texture warping/twitching. (though all modes show very posterized/banded shading/lighting due to the 256 color limitation)

NFS looked a lot better on my PC, even with only 256 colors.

The more shading/lighting effects (and transparent blending) used in a game, the more obvious the differences are . . . especially since few software renderers supported dithering (something that could really help smooth out low-color rendering . . . like X-Wing and Tie Fighter do to achieve pretty smooth shading in 256 colors). Dithering can be CPU intensive, but then so is rendering at high resolutions. (which many 256 color software renderers did support )

The resolution does not affect it that much IMO, low-res games didn't look so ugly in old CRT TVs.

It helps though . . . higher res means lesser jaggies/aliasing (and lesser "swarming" of far BG textures/objects) . . . and nicer looking dithering. (if supported -makes a bg difference in Tie Fighter)

It's true the resolution isn't always that noticeable on SDTVs (especially via composite), but it's usually still significant if shown back to back at least (on a decent sized TV, often even using composite video). The difference from low/high detail in many N64 games is instantly visible. (though in the case of Episode 1 Racer, it has AA/blur on the low-res mode, so rather than blockier to sharp, it goes from blurry to sharp ).

Also, the lower res on TV makes the difference even more dramatic for higher res on sharp VGA monitors. (especially going beyond 640x480 -for me personally, by ~2001, I was playing most things at 1024x768 . . . and Rogue Squadron at 1024x768 was quite visibly different from RS on the N64, even in high-res mode . . . or E1 Racer, or Battle For Naboo -all of which I had/have on PC . . . though the added texture details and framerates were also significant . . . and audio quality in some cases, and model detail -more so in E1 Racer and BFN than RS)


And then there's how silly the jump to "HD" gaming was for PC gamers where HD resolutions had been the standard for the better part of a decade. (though "HD" gaming was/is obviously used to denote more than the games running in HD, but also to differentiate the new generation -though, technically, the Xbox/PS2/GC were all powerful enough to run many games at HD level resolutions -like 1024x968 or 1280x720, etc- like PCs were in the late 90s and early 2000s -actually the Xbox is significantly more powerful than the PC I was using ~2001/2002)

[Bastardcat]

I'll play that.
I'll play the fuck out of that.

[Gogogadget]

I really liked COD2, the WW2 atmosphere and the fact that the entire game is overly frantic made it very enjoyable to play.

Bugger MW3 though, Super Metroid time.

[sketch]

See, that's what I'm talking about. Retro gamers will play hundreds of marginally different platformers, shmups, and fighting games and argue over the minuscule differences and variations between them for hours, but when it comes to first person shooters suddenly every game is identical all the way back to Goldeneye 64.

Heh; there's some truth in that I think that I haven't been wowed by an fps the way I was with Goldeneye because the degree to which Goldeneye raised the bar. Others have made improvements and raised the bar since, but only incrementally.

To use a baseball analogy, Goldeneye was the Babe Ruth of console fps games. Ruth was the first person to hit 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 home runs. Other baseball players have surpassed the 60 mark (cough-steroids-cough), and of course many players have raised the bar on baseball accomplishments (like Rickey Henderson's single season steal record), but the fact is, no one raised the bar so quickly all by themselves as did George Herman Ruth.

Same with Goldeneye IMHO. Other games have raised the bar with better storytelling, more interesting atmosphere or graphics, and added mechanics. But none took the genre forward in such a staggering way as Goldeneye did. And I don't think any fps has equalled the all-around single player and multi player package of Goldeneye. It was just good on all fronts.

[NeoZeedeater]

Goldeneye OTOH did introduce something significant: 4 player split-screen local multiplayer in an FPS . . . I don't think any console or computer FPSs supported that before.

I think the N64 port of Hexen did that a little earlier than Goldeneye. It wouldn't surprise me if there's something earlier but I can't think of any right now.

[Genesis Knight]

I think you guys remember Goldeneye as being this revolution in FPS games simply because you were kids or weren't playing the PC scene back then. No offense. I don't remember Goldeneye as anything special; whatever it did in multiplayer had been done in grander scale with QuakeWorld already.

[Barone]

@kool kitty89
Great post! And I was doing exactly the same about resolutions and all the stuff you said, exactly the same...

I think the N64 port of Hexen did that a little earlier than Goldeneye. It wouldn't surprise me if there's something earlier but I can't think of any right now.

Yep! Hexen came out 2 months before Goldeneye 007 according to Gamefaqs:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/n64/197555-hexen/data
http://www.gamefaqs.com/n64/197462-goldeneye-007/data

I think you guys remember Goldeneye as being this revolution in FPS games simply because you were kids or weren't playing the PC scene back then. No offense. I don't remember Goldeneye as anything special; whatever it did in multiplayer had been done in grander scale with QuakeWorld already.

This!

[Guntz]

I think you guys remember Goldeneye as being this revolution in FPS games simply because you were kids or weren't playing the PC scene back then. No offense. I don't remember Goldeneye as anything special; whatever it did in multiplayer had been done in grander scale with QuakeWorld already.

You're missing the entire point. GoldenEye revolutionized FPS games on home consoles. This has nothing to do with PCs. Everyone already knows the FPS was popular on the PC first.

[j_factor]

Maybe I'm way off-base and forgetting something major, but Goldeneye was the first FPS I remember playing where each level had specific objectives. Save this hostage, destroy this target, plant a tracer on this vehicle. I don't remember doing that kind of stuff in first-person shooters before.

Also, I think Goldeneye was the first FPS with any stealth elements, although admittedly that's not a huge part of the game.

[Barone]

You're missing the entire point. GoldenEye revolutionized FPS games on home consoles. This has nothing to do with PCs. Everyone already knows the FPS was popular on the PC first.

Guntz, don't take me wrong 'cause I respect you, but you were just a 5-year old little boy when the game came out, so you just make his point!

If you played it at 5, your notion of revolution, at that time, was... Arguable.

GoldenEye revolutionized greatly improved FPS games on home consoles. This has nothing everything to do with previous PC games...

Maybe I'm way off-base and forgetting something major, but Goldeneye was the first FPS I remember playing where each level had specific objectives. Save this hostage, destroy this target, plant a tracer on this vehicle. I don't remember doing that kind of stuff in first-person shooters before.

Also, I think Goldeneye was the first FPS with any stealth elements, although admittedly that's not a huge part of the game.

You have a point here.
However, a FPS based on a 007 movie without missions would a little bizarre, don't you think?

OK, they did it greatly, I agree.

[sketch]

Maybe I'm way off-base and forgetting something major, but Goldeneye was the first FPS I remember playing where each level had specific objectives. Save this hostage, destroy this target, plant a tracer on this vehicle. I don't remember doing that kind of stuff in first-person shooters before.

Also, I think Goldeneye was the first FPS with any stealth elements, although admittedly that's not a huge part of the game.

I'm on your side in this debate, factor The level and mission design in Goldeneye was excellent.

I think you guys remember Goldeneye as being this revolution in FPS games simply because you were kids or weren't playing the PC scene back then. No offense. I don't remember Goldeneye as anything special; whatever it did in multiplayer had been done in grander scale with QuakeWorld already.

I assure you, I was a fully formed adult when Goldeneye came out (check the age in my posts). I was playing the Quake games at that time (although not so much for deathmatch), and the gameplay was so incredibly simplistic that I quickly tired of it in single player. Deathmatch was fun, but my point wasn't that Goldeneye was a better DM game (although I do think it is), but that it's gameplay was much better than any other fps at the time.

It blended a lot of things all at once that hadn't been done in an FPS to my knowledge, and made the game much more complex than the id games. The sniping mechanic alone made the game more interesting than Quake et al.

You're missing the entire point. GoldenEye revolutionized FPS games on home consoles. This has nothing to do with PCs. Everyone already knows the FPS was popular on the PC first.

I don't think anyone can dispute that this was a landmark fps for consoles...

[Barone]

Landmark != Revolution